Allowed

Jolly v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2012Bail Appl./8146/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed pre-arrest bail for five accused petitioners in a criminal case involving injuries and alleged offenses under the IPC. The court relied on extraordinary circumstances involving a potential counter blast and lack of severe injury evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to surrender by 18.12.2012, executing a bond with two sureties for Rs. 15,000/-, and conditions against tampering with evidence.

Jolly Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/20TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8146 of 2012 ()

¶6

-----------------------------(CRIME NO.687/2012 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 3 TO 6:

¶8

1. JOLLY,, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN,PYTHREDATH HOUSE,THANAKKAL BHAGAM, ELAMAKKARA.

¶9

2. ROY,, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LONAPPAN,ECHARANGATTU HOUSE,KALATHIPARAMBU LANE, POTTAKUZHI,ELAMAKKARA.

¶10

3. SAJEEVAN,, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.PANJAKSHAN,RESIDING AT C/O.WILSON THOMAS, ARAKAKADAVU,VENNALA.

¶11

4. THAMPI,, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.APPU,PANDARAPARAMBU HOUSE,BEACH ROAD, VALAPPU,VYPIN,ELAMKUNNAPUZHA.

¶12

5. GIREESH,, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VASU,ASARIPARAMBU,SWAMIPADI, JANAKIYA ROAD,ELAMAKKARA,EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.C.D.JOHNNY

¶14

SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH

¶15

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURTOF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶21

B.A. No. 8146 of 2012

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2012

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

In respect of the incident which took place on 8.10.2012, initially Crime No.57/2012 was registered against certain persons, one of whom is the defacto complainant in Crime No.687/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,

¶25

144, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 302 r/w 149 IPC. Three

¶26

months thereafter, on a complaint said to have been filed by the defacto complainant before the Chief Minister which is forwarded to the police officers concerned, Crime No.687/2012 has been registered on 11.4.2012 arraying petitioners as accused 1 and 3 to 6.

¶27

Petitioners pointed out that they are innocent and

¶28

have been falsely implicated. They further say that present Crime No.687/2012 is a counter blast of Crime No.57/2012, in

¶29

which the offence under Sec.302 is incorporated. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is nothing to show that any injuries has been suffered by

¶30

B.A. No.8146 of 2012

¶31

¶32

any one of the victim in Crime No.687/2012 which would attract Section 326 of IPC. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioners may be granted pre-arrest bail.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. CD was made available for perusal. It is true that in Crime No.687/2012 of Kalamassery Police Station, three persons were injured. But the wound certificate produced do not show any injuries in order to attract Sec. 326 IPC. Further there is some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present crime has been registered as a counter blast to Crime No.57/2012 which arose out of the same incident in which offence under Sec.302 is also seen mentioned.

¶34

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Petition is allowed as follows:

¶35

i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 18-12-2012, who after interrogation shall

¶36

B.A. No.8146 of 2012

¶37

¶38

produce the petitioners before the JFCM court concerned, which court on application for bail filed by the petitioners shall release on bail on each of executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.

¶39

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.

¶40

iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required by him.

¶41

iv) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶42

v) If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

¶45

Scl.

Jolly v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jolly v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girija Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumaran Thampi G. Vs State of Kerala

Sameesh M.S Vs State